Although Theresa May’s Big Speech tomorrow is embargoed until midnight tonight (so why make it at all?), we now know that she will announce a hard Brexit. We are leaving the single market and she is going to prioritise border controls, which we already have. I want to know why she is making it at Lancaster House and not in the House of Commons.
Throughout last year’s ugly referendum campaign, the leave campaign was calling for us to “take back control”. It was a slogan which paid dividends with sections of the electorate, implying as it did that we didn’t have control already. It was a pick and mix slogan where you could air your misgivings about not having control of our borders (we already do), our own parliament (we already do) and unelected bureaucrats in Brussels making decisions (they don’t). The repeated lies of the leave camp trumped (sorry, bad choice of word) the scare stories of the Tory-led remain camp. It is “taking back control” argument which I would like to address tonight.
I happen to agree that parliament is sovereign. I believe passionately in a parliamentary democracy and on that basis oppose referendums. To me, in my black and white world, it’s one or the other. And to that end, decisions about leaving the EU should be made by parliament. That David Cameron decided, for party political reasons, to hold a referendum on the EU and then lost changes things. Whilst the referendum was “advisory”, we can’t ignore it. But surely parliament must now debate the way we leave the EU. Whilst the binary decision had been made, the complex details haven’t been decided. That’s where parliament comes in. Why is Mrs May announcing her plans to Lancaster House and not the House of Commons? I know and accept that my MP Jack Lopresti is a not very bright Tory buffoon, but he is there as my representative, my buffoon in the Commons. Whether he likes it or not – and I very much doubt that he cares one way or the other – he should hear the proposals from the horse’s mouth. Then parliament should be allowed to question Britain’s senior politician about what she has decided to do. Not just allowed to, compelled to.
I would have thought that even the most vehement leavers would find it odd that their prime minister was effectively ignoring parliament by making her speech elsewhere. If you bang on for ages about ghastly Brussels, then why are you not insisting that she gives you back control by speaking first to British members of said parliament?
I am not going to bang my head against the wall trying to persuade leavers to change their mind. Doubtless they will be thrilled that they also have an American president who shares their views on the EU and will be celebrating his inauguration on Friday. That’s a fair enough position in terms of consistency and I accept it without qualification. Trump is close to Farage, Farage is the face of leaving the EU, leave was how we voted. I don’t share that view, but my side lost and all I can argue about is the type of Brexit we face.
I support remaining in the free market, I welcome people who want to live and work in this country (in a secular society: a bit of work to done there, then) and I strongly support free movement to enable people to live, work, study and holiday abroad. We didn’t vote on that stuff and that is why Mrs May should be up before the House of Commons tomorrow announcing her strategy.
